|
By
Sean DeLauder
|
To
their credit, the social scientists and psychologists at BGSU
seldom express an interest in world conquest. They do not
throw their heads back and laugh maniacally when the feathery
thoughts of terror tickle their brains.
In
fact, they seem wholly sane.
A
recent psychology study questioned the common movie-bred stereotype
of scientists as frizzy-haired madmen.
Dr.
Richard Anderson, an associate professor in the psychology
department, has conceived numerous projects dealing with his
field, but nothing so ambitious as becoming a global despot.
|
|
His
current hypothesis and study, in which I was the first to partake,
suggests that the brain's search for simplicity might be the root
of the stereotyping process.
What’s
in a stereotype?
Most
stereotypes, according to Anderson's hypothesis, are products of
exposure to small groups. Small clusters are easier to assimilate
than larger, diverse groups.
Let’s
say a few hundred scientists attend a Bowling Green convention.
At this meeting most of the scientists are simple, sane and concerned
with benefiting humanity. Within this larger group are small clusters
of scientists with cottony hair who cackle frequently and discuss
their plans to obliterate the moon with a giant laser cannon.
Barring
their eccentricity, these scientists are likely to get more attention.
Being in condensed numbers, they are easier for the brain to negotiate
and classify.
With
this, they become the definition of a scientist for the casual observer.
Thus stereotypes based on a few who are superimposed on a larger
group.
"People
tend to overestimate correlations," Anderson said.
When
asked about his plans for world conquest, Anderson stared as though
a daffodil had sprouted from my temple. "I don't have any,"
he said.
Anderson's
experiment was one of about 35 taking place in the department last
semester according to Experimentrix.com, which displays most current
experiments.
"That's
not a perfect representation because some people in the department
use children or the elderly for their subject pool," said Dr.
Anne Gordon, an associate professor in the psychology department.
"Not all [of the department experiments] use college undergraduates."
Gordon
said there might be a slight increase of experiments in the spring
when graduate students begin compiling research data for their theses.
Finding
subjects for these experiments might be a problem if professors
were not in contact with a vast population daily. "In Psychology
201 students are asked to get research experience through participation
or reading a study," Gordon said. "Usually this is offered
as extra credit."
As the inaugural subject in Anderson's new study, I witnessed the
experimental process. Surprisingly, at no time was I injected with
radioactive isotopes.
Nor
was I electrocuted.
Nor
was I covered in honey, locked in a room with army ants and observed
through a two-way mirror.
A
certification of informed consent indicated (to my relief), "this
study will not involve pain, discomfort or harm."
Instead
I painlessly observed pairs of numbers flicker on a computer screen.
Common
research methods
Collecting
research data on the computer is one of many methods used, according
to Gordon. Surveys, behavioral observations and psychophysiological
observations all contribute to research. "Some are one-on-one,
some are done in groups of ten, and some in groups of 50 or 60,"
she said.
And
most take less than an hour, she said.
Though
none of the students I encountered had participated in any experiments,
the professors seem to easily find volunteers.
Experiments
such as Anderson's are undertaken for numerous reasons. Some involve
basic research which fills gaps in psychological literature, Gordon
said. Others are involved in applied research, which is driven to
improve the lives of people in general.
My
stereotypical perspective was unaffected by these humanitarian and
pragmatic pursuits, fed by visions of Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis
chasing ghosts with electric silly-string and catching them in striped
Velveeta cheese boxes. Undaunted, I inquired which staff member
was most likely a threat to world peace.
Gordon
stared as though I were Pac-Man requesting a power pellet. After
blinking a few times in disbelief, she declined to answer.
Anderson
said this study fits the category of basic research, though he feels
there could be other applications. In making people aware of the
process of stereotyping, people might be less inclined to classify
groups of people based on a just a few in the group.
The
experiment
I
leaned towards a computer in Anderson's office. Three columns appeared:
A, B and C. Numbers began flashing beneath them. Each time numbers
appeared there was always a number in column A, but B and C alternated
in groups of various sizes. "Which column [B or C] do the numbers
in A appear more closely related to?" Anderson asked. A number
appeared in column A and B, hesitated, then disappeared. In their
place two different numbers appeared in A and B. A and C followed
with several repetitions.
When
the numbers finished their pulsing jig, it seemed AB appeared to
have popped up more often than AC, so my choice seemed clear. This
procedure was repeated a second, third and fourth time. At the conclusion
I was satisfied I had served my purpose.
To
someone ignorant of the methods of psychological experimentation,
such as myself, blinking numbers on a computer screen did not make
a whit of sense. I was utterly befuddled. For Anderson the experiment
was a complete success.
As
I discovered afterwards, the digits appeared an equal amount of
times in both AB and AC. What made the distribution seem different
was how they were grouped. Those numbers appearing in group AB were
grouped in threes, where those in AC were grouped in sixes. AB groups
would have been more frequent, though numbers in AB and AC were
the same.
It functioned much the same as seeing numbers stretched out in groups.
333
666666 333 333 666666 333 333 666666 333
On
first glance it may appear there are more threes than there are
sixes. This is, according to Anderson's speculation, because the
brain finds it easier to process small groups as opposed to larger
ones. There are more groups of three, six, than there are of six,
three, so it appears the former is more numerous.
Each
person undergoes Anderson's short test four times. After deciding
on a group Anderson assigns the choices a one if they chose the
column that flashed numbers and a zero if they chose numbers in
groups of three. He then records the average. Anderson suspects
people will choose the column with the small clusters, meaning the
average will be closer to one than zero.
Anderson
is still working out some kinks, he said. "Some small groups,
such as three groups of three, appear to be one group of nine,"
Anderson said. Near the end of last semester, he was tweaking the
experiment to make it work better.
With
the revision and rewriting process, it may be as long as three years
before Anderson’s findings are published. He could begin writing
a paper on the subject as soon as this semester. "If I get
good data I could present it at a summer or winter conference,"
he said. "If the average is over .50 then I have some evidence."
How
did I score?
I
provided some positive evidence for Anderson, tallying a .75. Three
out of four. My brain was convinced, even though it was shown the
same amount of numbers in each column, that the smaller groups were
more populous. Most numbers, my brain said, belonged to group AB,
even though the same amount appeared in AC.
Maybe
my suspicions about latent evil inherent in science isn't well founded
after all.
|
